Citizen Voices

Change From What?

2008-09-05T15:26:00Z

Whatever happened to individual responsibility? Those used to be a Republican buzzwords, but they've faded from the lexicon lately.

The absence was even pronounced in John McCain's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention on Thursday night. According to the transcript, President Bush was never referred to by name. As amazing as this is, the candidate of the President's party running to succeed him in office wants change but has nothing whatsoever to say about the current office holder. Unless McCain is arguing that Bush actually made no decisions during the last eight years, a conspiracy theory I've heard advanced in other quarters (though generally as a joke), at some point the man has to be held accountable for his actions.

I had the same problem eight years ago when I decided not to vote for Gore because as an idealistic and new attorney, not to mention former federal law enforcement officer, I couldn't accept his refusal to publicly condemn President Clinton for his perjury. For this voter, some things just need to be said publicly. Gore needed to do it then, and McCain needed to do it Thursday.

McCain is now in a similarly awkward position, but one that I'd hoped his highly-touted ethics and maverick streak would have guided him through. He claims to be an agent of change, but in this speech couldn't or wouldn't renounce those individuals who brought us to this point. A campaign of change implies that things have gone wrong, but a refusal to identify the causes of the needs for change suggest a state of denial that make his pledge of change seem lukewarm at best.

There were parts of his speech that I whole-heartedly agreed with, most notably this section:

“I fight to restore the pride and principles of our party. We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us. We lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption. We lost their trust when rather than reform government, both parties made it bigger. We lost their trust when instead of freeing ourselves from a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, both parties and Sen. Obama passed another corporate welfare bill for oil companies. We lost their trust, when we valued our power over our principles.”

It was correct, and what needed to be said. People within the current administration caused a lot of Americans to lose their trust in the Republican Party. But it doesn't go far enough, and I'm not certain any Republican nominee can go far enough within the framework of the party. I am a Republican, but I'm not sold on the idea that the Republican Party, or their candidate for President, has done nearly enough to break from the last eight years to warrant consideration of four more years of Republican control of the White House. Maybe it will be necessary to wait for a fresh generation to work their way up through the system if we want to see real change within the Republican Party structure.

I'm willing to wait for those new leaders to emerge then see four more years of the status quo.

Without some evidence that McCain knows the roots of the need for change, how am I as a voter supposed to believe he can accomplish the needed change? As things stand now, I have to conclude he can't.

One last point: He really looked tired to me. In a campaign where he wants to avoid his age and health becoming issues, he really needed to come across better.

Business as Usual

2008-09-04T23:00:00Z

Since listening to Governor Sarah Palin's and Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Wednesday night speeches, I have been thinking a lot about heroes and community organizers.

Giuliani -- for those of you who missed it -- referred to McCain as a "hero" and to Obama as "Nada". Very nice, Rudy...just the kind of insightful statements that will help move this country forward.

Palin said, "Our nominee for President is a true profile in courage, and people like that ARE HARD TO COME BY." Really Governor Palin? I grew up on military bases and I was surrounded by heroes, true "profiles in courage". They just didn't talk about it all the time. (It's what warriors do, and are still doing from the youngest enlisted man or woman to the highest-ranking officer.) Like McCain's father, my father was also an Admiral, a fact I have never found reason to mention publicly until now. Why? Because though I was very proud of my father, it was his accomplishment, not mine. Unlike John McCain, it is not on MY resume. And my paternal grandmother was a suffragette...you know...one of those (snicker snicker) community organizers about whom you and Rudy Giuliani are so condescending.

Was Giuliani secretly sneering at all those "community organizers" who poured humanitarian aid into New York after the terrorist flew into the World Trade Center? He, on the other hand, was "executive" enough to parlay his name recognition, after the September 11, 2001 attacks, into forming his own "security consulting business".

When did "community organizing" become a joke? Bad enough that Palin, Giuliani and company found it to be such a ridiculous concept, but really, delegates.... it was embarrassing to see all of you in such thoughtless lockstep with that kind of mindless schoolyard bullying.

Palin guesses, "a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer', except that you have actual responsibilities."

Lets see, community organizers...there was Martin Luther King, (snicker snicker) Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Cesar Chavez, the Founding Fathers, suffragettes, Civil Rights leaders, among so many others to whom we owe our "rights". I might even say that Jesus and his band of disciples gave us a great model for community organizing.

As Obama's Campaign Manager David Plouffe noted, "Community organizing is how ordinary people respond to out-of-touch politicians and their failed policies."

"Victory in Iraq is finally in sight, " you said. Since you are seeking to be a heartbeat away from becoming the Commander in Chief...maybe you can answer the question I have been asking since the United States invaded Iraq. "What does victory look like?" I watched the video of your June 2008 address to the Wasilla Assembly of God, Master's Commission Graduates. In it you stated "our national leaders are sending our military men and women out on a task from God. There is a plan and it is God's plan." Is that the "victory" you speak of -- nothing short of a religious crusade?

Besides the obvious lies about Obama and misrepresentations about her own record, I found the partisan, insinuating, bullying tone of the speech to be familiar. We have been listening to Bush and Cheney deliver speeches like this for years, and in spite of her folksy delivery, it appears that she's a self proclaimed "pit-bull" who will make sure that the divisive politics of the last eight years remain in tact.

Palin Power

2008-09-04T11:59:00Z

It was with great anticipation that I viewed Sarah Palin's speech, given Wednesday at the Republican National Convention. I was not disappointed: the vice presidential candidate addressed real issues and presented herself as someone of conviction who would stand her ground rather than bow to the powers that be in Washington. She cleverly used her own experience (as a "community organizer") and beliefs ("the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery") to undermine Obama's rhetoric. All the while, she struck me as likable and a real promoter of change. Fortunately, she did much in the way of presenting the American people with her own accomplishments, something a large percentage of the news articles I have read conveniently fail to mention. (Her previous praise in the liberal media seems to be left forgotten.)

After researching her activities in government and listening to her speech, I extrapolate the following about Palin: She stands up to her opponents and promotes real reform where reform is needed. She won the gubernatorial race in Alaska on the basis of desiring to clean up government. She is a tough cookie who has opposed own party when necessary. She values reducing America's dependency on foreign oil by expanding oil and natural development at home, but at the same time, she is opposed to big oil and supports higher taxes on oil company profits. She sought to put the money gained by the government (through oil revenue) back into the hands of Alaskans. Throughout her gubernatorial stint, Palin has remained true to her word and down-to-earth. She sold a private jet, purchased with government money, on eBay. She has family serving in the military, and with her son set to deploy in a few short days she understands the general heart-felt desire to bring our troops home while at the same time aware that it would be foolish to forfeit on those grounds alone, while the Iraqi people remain in such a precarious security situation.

There are problematic elements to her nomination; of that there is no question. It is true that I would like a candidate with a bit more foreign policy experience. But I'm sure many Democrats wish that Obama had more of the same - or had never had the pleasure of meeting a certain Reverend Wright. We all acknowledge (or I hope we do) that no one is perfect.

Be that as it may, if you tend towards the liberal left or follow the Democratic Party line to the T, your criticisms aren't innovative. Surprise: you're not going to like Sarah Palin any more than I like Joe Biden. And if you say that we should have a vice president who speaks for all of us, allow me to gently encourage you to come down out of those clouds and join me here on earth. Short of claiming that there exists an absolute truth (and my guess is that you don't want to open that messy can of worms), we're going to have to agree that we disagree and that we bring two different viewpoints to the table, much like the two vice presidential candidates. Therefore, I will not use this forum to defend Palin's positions on abortion, taxes, or energy: she is a Republican. Enough said.

What I do take offense to is the media's presentation. If there is no absolute truth, as much of the left will claim, then why not give me a balanced view of this woman? Why the focus on her "faults" - not all of which I would label as so - without equal attention given to her accomplishments? Sadly, polls and studies have shown that the media does not represent the nation (the great majority of news reporters have voted Democrat in presidential and congressional elections, even at times when more than half of the population has voted Republican), but even so, isn't the news supposed to be reported without bias? As my journalism professor in college would tell me, though, there is no such thing as a "spin-less story."

And in the Palin spin there seems to be a disproportionate amount of attention given to her personal life, which has become the focus of many of the same people who hailed Bill Clinton's right to privacy during his impeachment proceedings. (To the best of my knowledge, though, Palin has not lied under oath.) I've heard it called hypocrisy that Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant out of wedlock since the Republican Party is all about family values. (Dear me, I hope the Democratic Party is about family values as well!) Hypocrisy? To be imperfect? Since when? And all I've seen is family values from the Palins; Bristol is not being shunned or condemned for her pregnancy and instead her family is coming alongside her as a new life is being welcomed. Hypocrisy would be if Palin encouraged her daughter to get an abortion or tried to cover up the pregnancy. But Palin knows first-hand that life - all life - is to be celebrated. I applaud Palin, who, in spite of being pressured by doctors to abort her own baby, who has Downs Syndrome, chose not to succumb to an effort to create the "perfect" race but rather to embrace the humanity (read: imperfection) of a new little blessing.

Oh dear, I've found myself focusing on abortion again. After the controversy of last week, I think I'd better move on. Which is exactly what the news media should do when it comes to Palin's personal life, which in my view, often points to integrity and humanity. Let's look at what she would bring to national government instead. A woman with strong moral principles and a desire to reduce government and taxes in favor of empowering the people through ethical reform is the type of person we need in office. (Dare I say it? I greatly prefer her to her running mate.) After listening to her speech, I am greatly looking forward to the upcoming vice presidential debate, and anticipate a forum in which Sarah Palin can prove herself once again.

A Rose for Sarah

2008-09-03T23:25:00Z

"GOP Corpse Lover"
Photo by Ms. Bunchopants

The upside of sleeping with a corpse is the slim chance of an unwanted pregnancy. The Republican Party of George Bush and John McCain is a freshly stiffened corpse. How long will its members lie in bed with it?

A quick guide to William Faulkner's "A Rose For Emily:"

Miss Emily is an inhabitant of the old guard Southern aristocracy, a single generation removed from the Civil War, she stubbornly clings to a world and way of life that no longer exists. Miss Emily is a victim of the twilight. Raised to believe in a world that has rotted completely, but has not quite crumbled. Even in the bloom of youth, she cannot find a proper suitor because there is no future for her kind. Eventually, she makes the only marriage bed she can. Every night, shut away in a back bedroom, she embraces the corpse of a poisoned scoundrel - her lover. The townsfolk can all smell the rot, but can't yet admit Miss Emily's hideous truth. Instead, they slip out at night tossing quick lime around her house to hide the reek. Years pass and the reek fades. The town goes on living with Miss Emily's terrible secret. Not until she dies is the bedroom door broken down and the corpse, little more than a stain in the middle of the bed, is finally removed.

There is a damp odor coming from the house of today's Republican Party. Breathe it in...No to science. No to diplomacy. No to strategy. No to innovation. No to individual liberty. No to the Constitution. Yes to torture. No to intellect. No to reason. No to the internet. No to public health. No to open minds. No to new ideas. The stench needs to be knocked down and the Republicans are getting the quick lime out. Rumor mongering, fear mongering, anti-intellectualism, politicized Christianity, veiled racism and vulgar nativism are thrown around to hide the truth.

Sarah Palin is smart, attractive, independent, youthful and represents, to many, a sacred set of American truths and values. But like Miss Emily, the values she represents have become grotesque hypocrisies. The most trustworthy American is by their definition: a whitish, Christian. Compassionate conservatism is the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Children must be shielded from the truth about their sexual natures. America is infallible. America can torture. America can go it alone. The earth is for Americans. And the health of this America can only be measured by the welfare of the wealthiest one percent. Jesus would be appalled.

Delusion offers the only escape from the rank odor of these principles - and Sarah Palin offers the delusion of vitality. She has slipped into bed with a corpse in hopes of making it seem alive. The comparison to Miss Emily is unfair to Sarah Palin, and admittedly imperfect. She might very well be an extraordinary person. But Palin for VP is an extraordinarily cynical and self serving Republican choice. She is not the heartbeat away, she is the imitation of a heartbeat that the Republican Party so desperately needs. McCain puts winning and Party first with the Palin selection; the welfare of the United States is a calculated afterthought.

Emily was able to stand the rank odor of her rotting lover because she embodied the living dead. But the living townsfolk have no such excuse. They are to blame for allowing Emily to spend forty years cuddling a corpse. There is a long and proud history of conservative American voices, but today's Republican Party has no room for Lincolns or Eisenhowers. No matter who claims the White House this election, the country's best hope for change will come when the Republican Party rises up from the revolting bed it seems so comfortable in these days.

A Labor Day Reflection

2008-09-01T18:11:00Z

Labor Day 2008 has me thinking about other meanings of that word, "labor." As my first little one is due to arrive later this month, "labor and delivery" come to mind most readily. Even now though, my own preoccupation has not completely replaced the significance of Labor Day: a time to honor the American workforce.

In this milestone election year, will our elected leaders choose to honor or merely consume American labor?

Regardless of who gets elected president, the country has laws in place protecting even non-unionized American workers from abusive practices, unlike in so many developing countries and even some bigger ones, like China. Since when, though, should workers compare themselves to their communist counterparts? By necessity, a changing economy has altered the way we view the workplace, and thus, career success.

We used to have a fairly predictable model to being successful. Get good grades. Go to college. Get a job with decent benefits and livable wages. But this formula has steadily broken down over several generations. Getting a college education no longer functions as the final step before entering the workplace. Some people, like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, the founders of Apple and Microsoft computers, deconstruct the traditional formula even further by skipping college altogether and creating their own circuitous path (no pun intended) to financial independence.

Are modern politicians still functioning within the outdated model of building a stronger workforce?

Add to the higher education equation whether open borders for trade, à là NAFTA, have ultimately helped or hurt the U.S. worker. The arguments are well known, especially during an election year. By making cheap overseas products available to buy and sell, American workers face buying competitors' goods. The problem is we're shipping goods from countries still struggling with the definitions of basic human rights. The protections most workers take for granted - a lunch break and "clocking out" after eight hours or so -- are pie-in-the-sky ideals in factories around the globe, including those in China, our primary supplier of goods.

I'm looking for an elected leader who will balance advancing the American worker with accommodating the American consumer.

Lastly, the immigration debate has divided both Democrats and Republicans alike on the matter of labor. Democrats who favor unionizing workplaces strongly oppose illegal employment practices. Republicans who favor tightened border security and freeing precious municipal resources oppose illegal hiring, even if it does help the economy supply cheaper goods and services. Either way, many American workers question whether the value of his or her labor must be cheapened in order to compete with the market forces of underground trade.

The next president will have to address complex issues of the global economy and how to reinforce the infrastructure of American labor. Although statistics conflict as to whether we're in a recession or not, most households now feel the pinch of shrinking profits, reprioritizing budgets, and working longer hours. Maybe Labor Day 2009 will be greeted with pride instead of complete exhaustion.

With Liberty and Justice for All

2008-08-29T23:40:00Z

Several weeks ago, I decided to call my African American friends across the country -- some of whom I hadn't seen in years. I was shocked to learn how many of them, especially those old enough to remember 1968, were very concerned for Obama's well being. Since I had not lived their lives, I knew my arguments held very little weight with them, and I sensed they were figuratively "patting me on the head as a well meaning but basically naïve little liberal." They feared he would be asked to pay too great a price and they let pragmatism bury their optimism. Perhaps Obama's acceptance speech last night has put their fears to rest, and they are able to embrace the hope that I feel.

My heritage is English, French, Scotch-Irish, Danish and German. I doubt that there is a drop of Black blood flowing in my veins, but in my heart I am so thrilled, so thrilled...for what this country has done. Yes I'm also a woman of Hillary's generation and I am gratified that she was an oh so serious contender. The next time I truly believe it will be a no-brainer -- a woman can and will be a candidate. A woman can and will be President.

But, here we are, and just look at the changes Obama's candidacy has already wrought. I don't mean to sound presumptuous to say I sense a soul-deep pride among blacks of all ages. I see evidence all around me- at my swimming pool, at my gym, in my church, in a predominately conservative town...(really...I know we have 2,500 registered Democrats in Coronado, but I drove up and down every street and it's true...we actually DO have the only Obama yard sign in town.) But yesterday, I noticed a young African American working out at the Community Center. He was the only one of his race among a sea of white, but he carried himself with such dignity, the epitome of self-containment. His time has indeed come.

He owes no one an apology; in truth, of course, he never did; but culturally, I am sure in the past he had experienced that resentful energy, "who let you in?" In my own childhood, I was once one of two Caucasian children in my class of 30, and I learned at an early age what it is to be in the minority, though thankfully, mine was a fleeting experience of only one very lonely year.

I had a late appointment on Thursday afternoon and I was afraid I would miss the acceptance speech. Listening to Gore on the car radio, I drove like a maniac, blew into the garage, yelled at the dogs that dinner would be late and turned on the TV just as Obama took the stage.

It was as if the universe was conspiring against me. Children rang the door bell with their latest school fundraising projects, my dogs were whining for dinner, the phone rang with solicitors, and through it all I sat mesmerized, with eyes streaming as I watched the man who must be president.

It was only when Obama finished, and stood with his wife and children, that I realized, in my haste, I had inadvertently tuned into C-Span. What a gift! No pundits, no network filters, just the record of the event...I got to think my own thoughts... no one telling me what I should be thinking and no calculated camera angles; just the people, just the tears, just the faces.

I saw the America we can become...you know ...the one we all pledged allegiance to as school children. Only this time it might just come true.

Is The Circus In Town?

2008-08-29T15:30:00Z

First semi-conscious reaction to this morning's big news: McCain's chosen a Monty Python alum as his running mate?

Slightly more caffeinated reaction: McCain's chosen who as his running mate?

Sarah Palin? OK, according to her entry at Wikipedia, apparently she has some very strong reformer credentials, and has a history of bucking the Republican establishment. I can see both elements attracting the attention of the McCain campaign.

But doesn't her selection cripple the McCain argument that Obama's lack of experience should preclude him from being elected President? She has no national political experience, and has only been in statewide office since her election as governor of Alaska in 2006. I think the pendulum on experience may have swung back to a position where the Obama campaign can use that 3 a.m. phone call advertisement that Clinton used against Obama during the primaries.

I'm still looking to learn more about Mrs. Palin, but I have to be honest in thinking that my first reaction is that the nomination offers nothing substantive toward governance of the country, but is simply a brazen appeal to those demographics still upset the Hillary Clinton isn't on the Democratic Party ticket in some role.

The Darker Side of Hope (And the Audacity of ‘Our Posterity’)

2008-08-28T13:48:00Z

In light of the excitement and anticipation surrounding Hillary Clinton's speech at this week's Democratic National Convention, some may have missed the short address delivered by Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, a few hours earlier. In her short oration, Richards praised Barack Obama's commitment to women's health care and admonished his opponent by pointing out that the presumptive Republican candidate "voted against real sex education, against affordable family planning and, if elected, John McCain has vowed to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade."

She has little to worry about. Roe v. Wade is here to stay and come mid-November, I suspect we will all be referring to her preferred candidate as president-elect Obama. Nevertheless, Richards brought to mind an interesting question: aside from being generally pro-choice and believing that the issue of when life begins is above his "pay grade" (that certainly doesn't leave the rest of us any hope of understanding the issue, especially when he starts earning a president's salary), what do we know about Obama's position on abortion? The most revealing way to answer this question is to take a look at the senator's voting record.

Planned Parenthood is right in endorsing Obama as the candidate who will stand by the organization's principles, most notably, a woman's right to choose. He has repeatedly shown his support for the expansion of abortion rights by, for example, voting against bills that would prohibit tax funding of the procedure. This is in spite of stating at the recent Saddleback Faith Forum that he would like to reduce the number of abortions that take place in this country. But perhaps most disturbing is Obama's record on partial-birth abortion.

Even with many people grappling with when life begins, it is hard to deny that a baby - born live - is a human being. For those who don't know the specifics of partial-birth abortion - which many people, including pro-choicers, consider infanticide - it is not a medical term, and is instead defined by the federal government. Essentially, it occurs when a baby is partially delivered (past its navel) before it is killed. In other words, it is a partial live delivery, and the death occurs through the physician's method of extraction. According to the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, the procedure is most commonly performed on healthy mothers and healthy fetuses that are more than five months along. The most common method is to use foreceps to grab the child by the leg and pull it through the birth canal and out of the mother with the exception of the baby's head, which remains inside. The physician then stabs a pair of scissors into the baby's skull and opens them to expand the head. After the scissors are removed, the baby's brains are sucked out via catheter. This is not so much the aborting of a pregnancy as it is the aborting of a life.

And yet, this gruesome procedure is one that Obama supports. He is opposed to legislation that would ban the procedure, and while in the Illinois Senate, did not vote in favor of a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA), which prevents the murder of live babies who are the victims of abortions-gone-wrong. (He was the only person to speak out against the Illinois bill. And the BAIPA passed the U.S. Senate with unanimous support, even gaining the acceptance of some of the most outspoken abortion supporters, including Barbara Boxer.)

For a man who presents himself as the hope of our nation, this darker, extremist side is often cleverly ignored. He is the master of feel-good statements, advocating his own brand of post-partisanship by supporting abortion funding while saying that we should seek to reduce the number of abortions in this country. Perhaps he seeks to do that through what Richards would refer to as "real" sex education. No, "real" sex education does not emphasize abstinence or require that students be told the gruesome story of abortion. It stresses how to participate in sexual activity in a safe(r) way.

To that end, I would like to propose a new education program for our public schools: Safe(r) Drunk Driving Education. In the program, teachers can briefly inform students that the best possible way to avoid the dangerous consequences of drunk driving is to avoid participating in the activity all together. However, since we all know that kids are going to drink and then get into cars and drive, teachers will need to spend the majority of their class time focusing not on abstaining from the activity, but on instructing students in how to do it safely. Teachers can go over how to properly fasten a seatbelt. Students should be instructed that having a car with airbags adds another level of protection. It's probably best to drive more slowly and cautiously to compensate for slower reaction times. There may also be methods (such as taking a herbal pill or consuming a cup of coffee) to reduce the effects of drunkenness.

But by all means, drive drunk. Have fun with it. Just be safe. And if something goes wrong and someone gets hurt, well, another's person's life just isn't that valuable.

Or maybe it is. Maybe all life is. Maybe with the ordaining of the Constitution to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity", our country's forefathers endowed the pre-born with a hope and a future. Maybe the cry of "Can I Live" is the audacity of our posterity.

Some Things Fishy

2008-08-27T02:21:00Z

Hopeful, fearsome, Riefenstahlian propaganda or choreography of the new world order -- the opening and closing ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics were nothing if not overwhelming. The conventions have a tough primetime act to follow. No sky jogging, no LEDs, no day-glo lycra -- just a man, a mic, and a message. Obama will surely deliver a rousing speech, McCain will sleepwalk through a wooden Minneapolis extravaganza; and then we'll go right back to flash polls and daily sniping.

Made for TV spectacle has a death grip on presidential politics. This is no novel claim or original discovery, but it feels particularly sad and final this time around. Careerist pundits are set on full-thrust vomit mode, so that even the occasional insight is tough to take. Ideas are not valued. Those millions and millions of dollars raised by both candidates need to be spent, and network and cable channels will oblige with a guaranteed ninth inning thriller.

Just like the O.J. trial created junkies for courtroom entertainment; we now crave the adrenaline rush of the 2000 Gore/Bush election. Both campaigns, the press, poll workers, vote counters and voting machine manufacturers all know that anything goes and anything can happen. What parts of this election will end up in a courtroom? I don't need hope in a candidate as much as I need renewed hope in the process. Any more punditry on my part and the self loathing will finally be unbearable. So...

I wear leather belts, I've got a few nice pair of cowhide shoes, eat the occasional steak and have gutted more than a few fish - but always I try to steer clear of animal torture and torment. I've never copulated with an owl or splashed fur on behalf of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) - but I am an animal lover. I love dogs and dolphins the most - and in rare cases have been touched by cats. I speak all breeds of dog and can communicate anything from love to anger to play to disappointment. It's a matter of eyebrows and body posture, with few varieties of bark, growl and Scooby grunt thrown in.

Cindy McCain, dolphin captor through association with Anhieser Bush.

Dolphins are trickier. Floating on my board between sets, I call out to wild dolphin pods whenever I get the chance. There's the single hand cupped water slap, the double handed cupping pop, the depth charge type kick and a few whistle bursts. I don't pretend to have any idea what I am saying to these dolphins, but they are gracious in receiving my spastic shout outs. They cruise in close, give me a good eye-balling and duck under while deciding if they want to stick around. Sometimes they are friendly and allow their babies to swim in for a closer look at the idiot dolphin speaker. Sometimes the whole family sticks around for some leaps and a surf. The floppy finned dolphins at SeaWorld are not as happy as their counterparts in the wild - I've talked to them too. It's in their eyes, skin and in their subservience - but it's most apparent in their confinement tanks, a breeze away from their rightful Pacific.

Along with money; SeaWorld does raise awareness, love and money on behalf of dolphins, killer whales, sharks, seals and all manner of ocean life. I realize a good many human jobs and economies depend on SeaWorld. But the commercialization, the numbing and the profit of cruelty are never its justification.

The rumors of a PETA buyout of SeaWorld are probably a tease, but it's hope I want to believe in.

Where’s The News?

2008-08-26T16:16:00Z

As my TV shifted from round-the-clock sports to round-the-clock politics this past weekend, it also did something else. It lost my interest.

I understand the need for party conventions. I'm fascinated by them, in fact. Politics is face-to-face talk, back slapping and hand shaking, not policy memos and staff opinions. Decisions need to be made, and conventions are where that's done at the highest level. Deals will be struck and compromises will be reached. There may even be some hurt feelings. But that's not what's being covered.

Network coverage of the political conventions has been like watching coverage of a major sporting event, except the on-air personalities are spending all their time interviewing the fans and cheerleaders. Fluff over substance, like trying to live on a diet of cotton candy. Feels good in the short term, but probably not the most fulfilling option available.

Want to make it newsworthy? Embed a camera back stage. Get some fixed cameras in place in the back rooms and wait for the fireworks, a la CBS' Big Brother. Find an issue that's actually in contention and cover both sides of the debate. But don't show partisan speeches and "voting" that's a foregone conclusion and call it news. It's as much of a farce as the so-called "Live" coverage of the Olympics was last week.

Two (more) Cents about Biden

2008-08-26T03:47:00Z

Professional pundits and those whose opinions carry weight in nationally respected publications have speculated whether Barack Obama's choice of vice president in Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware) will connect with voters. Here are a few reasons why I think Obama made a good decision:

In choosing Joe Biden, the 2008 Democratic nominee wipes out two previous election cycles' worth of poor choices, i.e., Joe Lieberman, (Lie-berman) emphasis on the "lie" he embodies as a traitor to Democrats and to the values he supposedly brought to Al Gore's campaign; and even John Edwards who, although a strong candidate in and of himself, was not a well-suited intellectual or dispositional match with John Kerry. Senator Biden's temperament matches Obama's as being a well-spoken fighter who's as smart as he is loyal to his Democratic roots.

Joe Biden is a better choice for undecided voters than Hillary Clinton. While pure speculation, maybe independent voters have not staked their claims in Senator Obama fearing the talking points from McCain's camp are true: Obama is too young, inexperienced, untested politically, etc... Joe Biden deadens those arguments because of his nearly forty year history in the Senate. Plus, anyone repelled by the Democratic Party because of the Clintons' own history (both before and during this presidential race) won't have to hold their noses at voting both Democratic and casting a ballot for a Clinton. As for Democrats wishing for an Obama-Clinton ticket, all I can say is, Hillary and Bill Clinton made the divisive bed they're in. Down goes "Operation Chaos."

Joe Biden's working class roots come through when he speaks, despite his coordinating silk ties and high-end business suits. Although he speaks eloquently, and often for extended periods, he connects with listeners who need to hear something substantial from a politician. In other words, Biden doesn't wear the "elite" intellectual or "celebrity" mantles that Obama gets saddled with even while Biden's mind sparkles.

His uncomplicated, straightforward and clear manner of speaking about foreign policy affairs, especially about the Middle East. He knows the difference between the Sunni and Shia Iraqi tribes. He can help you and I understand why it matters. He is down-to-earth about big issues without dumbing it down, and how many intellectuals can do that? Further, his son, Joseph Robinette "Beau" Biden III, will be deployed to Iraq on October 3rd. How many sitting senators have a more active stake in finding resolution to the Iraqi quagmire than a father saying goodbye to his son?One might think a father like McCain would have a similar stake, as his son Jimmy served in Iraq, but apparently he wouldn't mind seeing them stay in the Middle East for another 100 years. Call me nuts, but Biden's approach to the war makes more sense in every way, including on the level of being a father.

He's the right man for the job. Like many others this week who have already said as much, Senator Barack Obama has made a wise, politically savvy choice in Joe Biden.

Pizzagate (Or ‘How A Blogger Learns to Stop Worrying and Love The Political Bomb’)

2008-08-25T08:35:00Z

My friends, with the DNC this week, I thought it might be nice to look into how political blogging can explode on the media. Let me tell you a tale that is now being affectionately referred to as 'Pizzagate'.

Last Monday, a pizza delivery driver named Anna delivered $30 worth of pizza to a house. The twist to this is that the pizza was being delivered to Curt Bramble, Senate Majority Leader for the state of Utah. Mr. Bramble then allegedly began to berate the delivery driver, harass her manager over the phone, and even tried using his position as Senate Majority Leader to force them to accept a personal check. When they finally agreed to accept a check, it wasn't to his liking, so he then finally put the bill on his American Express card. All in all, not the best way for anyone to treat someone who provides you food, and definitely not how a political figure should act.

But, the story doesn't end here. In fact, it just begins. For, you see, it turns out this young lady is a blogger. A blogger who let out her frustrations over this in a post, as any blogger in her situation would. She didn't name names, but she did leave enough clues that it was obvious whom she was writing about. That's when it hit the fan.

By Wednesday, the blog post had landed on Digg, and Utah bloggers began passing the blog all over the net in support for their fellow blogger. As such, Utah's Media began to leap on this growing story. It began with Utah's Nightide Project, a local talk radio show in Utah, covering the story. From there the TV and newspapers picked up the story as it began snowballing further and further.

Come Wednesday night, the blogger girl tried to put out some of the growing firestorm by posting an apology letter on her blog that she had sent to Sen. Bramble. But by then it was too little, too late. As TV stations and newspapers began to cover the story, a flurry of the senator's supporters began the backlash of trolling, attacking the poor blogger for daring to criticize their chosen hero and elected official. A flame war exploded on her blog that spread across Utah's blogosphere as people chose their sides: The senator vs. "The pizza girl".

Now, with the week behind us, and the media starting to die down in Utah, the story is beginning to spread out across the net further, and is beginning to be picked up by larger and larger news media. By the time this is all done, the poor blogger will have learned first-hand the most important rule of blogging: Whenever you write on the internet, be ready for the ENTIRE internet to read it.

So, my friends, what can we learn from this tale of blogging and angry politicians gone bad? Well, first off, I'd like to think it shows just what impact any blogger - even the smallest one - can have in politics. After all, politics is seen as 'The biggest game of all', to quote NBC. And this story has shown us what can happen when the underdog comes up to bat. And I think that's the appeal of this story. Most of the country has worked in the service industry, and it is a sense of commodity to hear this tale and think of the bad customers we've all had in the past.

But, more importantly, I think it teaches politicians that they should behave nicer, even in private. More and more, the news is filling up with stories of political figures getting caught with hookers or taking bribes or just not living up to their office. These people are elected to represent us, the American People. And it's about time they finally start acting like they represent us once again in this country.

So, as the DNC starts, a word of warning to the political officials attending the convention. Be nice to that bellhop carrying your bags. Treat that waiter or waitress with the same respect she's giving you when she takes your order. And for heaven's sake, tip your pizza delivery driver well when you order in pizzas to the room. For you never know what can happen in this new internet age. This month it is Pizzagate, but next month it could be Obama in 'Drycleanersgate' or McCain in 'Tacogate'.

Try to keep that in mind when you interact with the service industry from now on. Not all of the service industry is silent anymore. I mean, look at me! KPBS let me have a blog, so it's not as far-fetched as you think.

Who Does Rick Warren Represent?

2008-08-22T17:02:00Z

I mix religion and politics every day when I thank God that the United States has a two-term limit for the office of President.

Aside from that secret vice, I adhere to the precepts stated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, so I was filled with trepidation last Saturday when I sat down to listen to the so-called "debate" between Senator Obama and Senator McCain hosted by Pastor Rick Warren at his Saddleback Church in Orange County.

Though I had heard of Rick Warren's books, I was unaware of the extent of his church's connections with the media, nor was I aware of his discipleship to management guru Peter Drucker. No matter how warm and fuzzy his religious message might be, this was truly a man with an agenda.

It seems Pastor Rick has a passel of supporters, (his books sold over 25 million copies) as well as legions of detractors. Without a doubt, many of his adversaries appear to be other pastors from even more conservative religious right persuasions, so I guess jealousy has a hand in some of the negative tracts I encountered.

But still I had to ask...how had Pastor Rick done it.... who gave him the go ahead to coerce these two candidates into spilling their guts about their personal religious convictions? This encounter is unprecedented in American politics and it does not bode well for the preservation of the separation between church and state.

I tried to watch with an open mind as first Obama, and then McCain subjected themselves to Pastor Rick's questions. If there was a good outcome, at least Obama's declaration of faith, honed in years of attending a Baptist Church, should lay to rest any discussion of his being a Muslim. Aside from that, I could see no real value in the remaining hour and 45 minutes of the show. Basically Obama gave complex and philosophical answers to complex issues and McCain generally gave short, knee jerk but semi-effective sound bite answers to complex issues.

One time when McCain broke his two-word answer rule, was when Warren asked him which of the Supreme Court justices he would not have approved. McCain listed Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer, in other words, every single non-conservative justice on the court...so much for a balance among the top judiciary body of our country.

Whenever the camera covered the audience response to the answers, I was amazed at the stony faces that stared back at the candidates, particularly Obama. That is not to say he didn't receive some warm response to a few of his comments, but the audience did seem to respond more enthusiastically to McCain's jingoism.

Who is this audience? What motivates people to attend mega-churches to find their spiritual core? A lot of them seem to be in their 30's and 40's and 50's so perhaps they were weaned on rock concerts held in football stadium and got hooked on that catharsis that occurs when you are part of 70,000 people rocking to the same music. In any case the mega churches seem to fit the same "cult of personality" afforded to rock stars, because there is always one male leader who is the disseminator of the truth as he sees it.

I wonder what would have happened if the Episcopal, Catholic, LDS, Methodist, Lutheran, or Presbyterian Leaders had desired a "litmus test" Q and A of the Candidates. What would have happened if the millions of Americans who are Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu wanted to hold their own gauntlet of questions? I am still unclear as to how Rick Warren earned the mantle of "Religious Rep" for the rest of us. To hear the secular "pundits" on Fox who "rated the contestants" right after the show, it might as well have been American Idol, another Fox show.

Call me crazy, but somehow I think the candidates and we deserve better.

Take Me Out to the (Hard)Ball Game

2008-08-21T12:56:00Z

I don't follow baseball. So it should have come as no surprise that my last-minute decision to quickly check team colors before heading to Petco Park last Sunday revealed that I was - you guessed it - wearing the opposing team's colors. (To my credit, I was wearing Padres blue. But layering it with red resulted in what could easily be mistaken for Philly pride.)

But I should introduce myself as something other than an ignorant sporting event attendee. I am your new conservative KPBS (stop right there - did I just use "conservative" and "KPBS" together?) citizen blogger, and my attendance (sans red layering tee) at a Padres game brought politics, faith, and patriotism into focus. Perhaps there's just something about singing "God Bless America" with 30,000 strangers during the seventh inning stretch that triggers feelings of unity, pride, and yes - true thankfulness. This, combined with the Saddleback Church Civil Forum of the evening before, got me thinking about the place that religious beliefs - anyone's religious beliefs - hold in American politics.

It is important to recognize and practice the separation of church and state. We do not live in a theocracy, and this country was founded on the principle that every individual is free to practice his or her religion. Separating religion and government, however, does not render a candidate's faith irrelevant. Without morality, a government has no reason for existence - what need would there be for law? And as long as morality is an important feature of our nation, so too will the religious perspectives of presidential candidates be of interest. This much is made clear by the attention given to the recent conversations Pastor Rick Warren had with Barack Obama and John McCain

Warren was an excellent moderator, posing serious and thought-provoking questions that went beyond what one might expect during a faith forum. And before we rush to judge Warren's motives, it should be noted that he said in a CNN interview last month that he would not publicly support one candidate over the other. In reading Alma's most recent post, it occurred to me that had Obama and McCain been interviewed by a Muslim imam or a Jewish rabbi (interviews I would find newsworthy and interesting), very few would express suspicion at the motives of the interviewer. If Warren had an "all encompassing mission," as Alma puts it, I believe he made it quite clear: "I think I can set up an environment that people can actually say, oh, so that's what that guy's really like." Why must "Christian" be a code word for "Crusader"? I certainly don't believe that "Muslim" is a code word for "terrorist." But back to the forum...

Obama and McCain gave answers that clarified their personal beliefs on such issues as abortion, same-sex marriage, and Iraq. Like it or not, morality drives policy. Give me one policy - from war to abortion to funding for public education - that is not driven by some underlying moral principle. And because morality drives policy, we should all care about the religious perspectives of Obama and McCain. Are there values that are completely removed from religion? Perhaps some people would like to think so. But we are heavily influenced by a Judeo-Christian ethos. That ethos may be shaped and manipulated by individuals, but it is still one of the foundations of the West, at least for now. With regards to individual interpretation, I found it very interesting to hear, for example, that Obama defines marriage as being between a man and a woman while still supporting same-sex unions. Where does this belief stem from, if not a religious root? Is there a non-religious agrument against same-sex marriage? (Let me hear your comments - I've long been looking for a response to this.)

So let me unashamedly say that this conservative Republican lets her religious views drive her voting practices while at the same time making use of non-religious reasoning. (You will rarely find religion in my posts.) No, Mr. Obama, I am not bitter, despite clinging to religion and arguably having a husband who clings to guns. I am thankful to live in a country where it is plausible for two people to sit down and talk about their faith in light of public policy, the way a Padres fan and a Phillies fan might stand side-by-side and sing the Star Spangled Banner. My views may differ significantly from those presented by the other citizen bloggers, but I will not apologize for my perspective. While there's something very empowering about feeling like you are preaching to the choir, there is something quite character-building about knowing that you are not. So by all means - let the comments commence. (My hope is for respectful dialogue and disagreement rather than an offensive game of hardball. I've been told by concerned friends and family that my voice will serve one of two purposes: I will either provide ammunition or be a human punching bag. While I don't mind the former - although I dislike the violent terminology - I will not back down and subject myself to the latter.)

But I dare say that the things that are important to me are, in one way or another, important to the majority of us in spite of our disagreements. From my vantage point (and trust me, it was a good one - I was about as far up and as far back as one can get) in the stands of Petco Park, I couldn't find a single person who chose to remain seated during either patriotic hymn that was sung. Standing beside my husband, in civilian clothes but rigid in salute to our flag, I dared to think that this is what unites us: a sense of freedom, a moral perspective, and a good game of baseball.

Politics and Law, Not Religion

2008-08-19T19:49:00Z

One way it’s tough to evaluate candidates for office as a voter is from looking at their personal religious beliefs. Thanks to the First Amendment, we have a secular civil government. That may be right or wrong, and I know some readers here would argue for wrong, but that's the way the Founding Fathers set up the system of checks and balances, and that's the way the system has worked most of the time during last two centuries.

Personally, I don't think a person's religious beliefs are part of the equation unless they choose to make them so. I prefer to look at their proposed policies, and the conclusions about politics and law they reach as a result of those beliefs. A candidate's experience in implementing policies, and success in competently managing programs, are more important to me than his or her source of inner strength in reaching those accomplishments.

I don't think the topic is off limits though. It can be very interesting, and telling, to see the labels a candidate can slap on himself in an effort to ingratiate to a specific voting block. From my perspective, the contortionist act generally backfires. The more a person's claimed devoutness becomes the central part of their proffered character, the tougher it becomes to see past personal deviations from that claimed faith, like infidelity, eating shrimp, and wearing white after Labor Day.

If a candidate has a plan to balance the budget, reduce taxes and cut the lines at the DMV, does the fact that his inspiration comes from the Flying Spaghetti Monster really change the merits of the plan? Conversely, would a plan to re-implement the public burning of witches really be taken seriously, or bring credibility to the candidate, no matter how much it coincided with someone's deeply held (and traditional) religious beliefs?

We're all the sum of our different experiences. Some of those experiences have taught us what to hold dear and others have left us with fear and pain. Whether the experience comes from a bully down the street or a Sunday School teacher or some passing stranger in an all-night coffee shop, the imprint is there, and asking any voter or candidate to ignore those things which make up his whole person is a futile gesture.

How a candidate uses those imprints is the real question. Big and bold to align to a known demographic? Internal and personal as part of a larger equation? Does he adopt a doctrine whole, clinging to it and struggling with it, even in those times it doesn't completely fit? Does he take each new experience and lesson and add them to himself, adapting and moving forward?

There may be a day when someone who has been touched by his noodly appendage will reach the White House. Someone whose stomach is full with the sauce of his love could have the strength and energy to lead the free world. But my vote will have to be based on more than that.